I agree with your point, but at the same time, you should be charged the price of the food if you grab perishable food and place it in an area that renders it unsafe. I worked in retail and at theme parks, and I'm personally of the opinion that it's better for everyone in the long run if you fire entitled customers.
That would be fine in the ages before social media. Now everyone "takes to twitter" and tries to organize a social pitchfork campaign. The victimhood mentality is real. People get off on the celebrity from being wronged by a big bad corporation. It wouldn't be long before some jerk posts a video of himself leaving a roast on the cereal aisle and being '86'ed from the store, then post it straight to Youtube for all the delicious karma points. Corporate image is a big deal.
Unless you make it "your thing." Take for example the Alamo Drafthouse, a chain of movies theaters that are aggressive in removing patrons that disrupt other viewers' experience. In the few times that people have tried to complain, the company has generally come out of it for the better.
I will admit this strategy won't work for everyone. Most corporations are not willing to respond to a complaint by using social media to (accurately) call the complainer an obnoxious asshole.
The real problem, though, is that one time when the company is in the wrong over a bug in the AI. Then you basically have a faulty AI, and by extension, the store, falsely accusing the customer of vandalism or some such thing. Not a good way to go.
Maybe this is different, but my experience with recent tech innovations in brick-and-mortar payment systems haven't been positive overall. More trouble than they're worth.
This could very well be different, but the minute the store starts valuing the AI over the customer, I think the store is in for some trouble public relations-wise.
Agreed. On a related note, I wonder with the extra efficiency gained from no checkout lines, how much it would offset lost revenue. In other words, if, say, you are able to serve 20% more customers, even if there's 4% more loss from tech bugs (not considering shoplifting), the fact that you're moving more people through the store might make up for it.
If someone buys 45 items, but 3 dont ring up, as long as the 3 were relatively cheap items like a can of beans, as opposed to a $15 jar of spices, does it really matter ? Over time, the system will learn which items "go missing" most often and focus on them specifically for better inventory mgmt.
who's got more profit: Alamo Drafthouse or Regal Cinemas ? Or rather, if you own X-thousand shares of XYZ corp, do you want them to "aggressively wage morality war" at the cost of $1.00/share, or maximize profits ?
From what I've read Alamo Drafthouse has over double the per-screen revenue of Cinemark. Their strict, pro-viewer policies really engender customer loyalty.
Sounds like that place would have lower prices since the costs of customers like that isn't spread around to considerate people, I think I would like to shop there.
Not really. Customers already pay more if they don't have the company card, aren't "loyal" etc... Instead of it being framed as a fine or punishment or way to "fire customers" it is simply referred to as a discount and a way to get coupons.
